Forum Romanum


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Hispania Provincial Meeting - Photos
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:08:48 -0000

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@y...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites.
>
> I have the impression that some of you actually enjoy seeing
> photographs of fellow Novoromans having fun :-).
>

Thank you for the pictures. Who needs a country, we have a hotel! <G>

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Questions on meanings and other things
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:57:05 EDT

Salveto,

A brief history of the "Vandals" can be found on this site: <A HREF="http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html">History of the
Vandals</A> Here is another one: <A HREF="http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/V/Vandals.asp">Vandals on Encyclopedia.com 2002</A>
Here is a discussion thread on the orgins for Germanic tribal names: <A HREF="http://hum.gu.se/arkiv/ONN/1996/ONN.01/0682.html">
OLDNORSENET List Archive: Varangians, Goths and Germanic origin</A> I haven't
read them all, but the do contain good reference material for further use.
Here is a link that uses "merchants" as a possible meaning: <A HREF="http://hum.gu.se/arkiv/ONN/1996/ONN.01/0344.html">OLDNORSENET List
Archive: Vandals and Vendsyssel (North Jutland)</A>
Although this one doesn't actually discuss origins, I had to include it
because of the amusing reference to the origin for the tribal name
"Longobardians (Lombards):" <A HREF="http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm3.html">http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm3.html</A>
Here is one that references the orgin for the name to a mythic tribal
leader: <A HREF="http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm4.html">http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm4.html</A>

The speculation about "Vandal" being based on an ancient mythic leader is
the one I recall from my books regarding the time period in question.
Unfortunately, I haven't replaced those yet and cannot provide reference from
own library at home. I do recall the title of one being "Ostrogoths" (can't
remember the author off the top of my head) that had a good chunk of
information. I do hope this helps.

Vale,
M. Varius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] A few thoughts on the "Gens issue"
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:30:59 EDT

Salveto,

I've been reading the threads about the "gens issue" and have found most of
the discussions to be very interesting. The sections where participants seem
to get a bit too personal or "over zealous" in the presentation of their
viewpoints I see as the outgrowth of vehement opinions. Unfortunately, that
does seem to happen when people converse about subjects they feel very
strongly about.

Since I haven't been a Citizen for very long, I haven't formed many
"strong" opinions about some of the organizational qualities of the group.
Time is usually required to determine functionality and operational
viability. However, there seemed to be a focus on several points that struck
me as interestingly divergent and similar at the same time.

On the one hand there seems to be a desire to give choices to people about
their affiliations regarding the gens they join and participate in. On the
other hand there seems to be a desire to promote control of gens membership
to the paterfamilias. Many arguments have been brought forward regarding both
positions and it appears that the positions are opposed. I have wondered if
they are.

For example: my wife and I talked over our membership before we decided to
join Nova Roma. We discussed what affiliation we wanted to have along with
the pros and cons of variations. It was not a discussion taken lightly or
without careful deliberation. Being a member of an existing gens would
provide a group to identify with and some political solidarity with regard to
the idea that there is "strength in numbers." In fact, my wife had been
approached on several occasions by a friend who was (and is) one of the
original group members and offered the opportunity to become a member of his
paterfamilias. It was a great compliment and I am sure we would have both
been welcome. However, we also wanted to establish ourselves on our own and
have a unique unit that we could build from the "ground up." It might take
more time to become established, but it seemed an obtainable goal that had
its own rewards.

A brief aside: I have read several comments regarding the length of time it
took to get applications processed. We did not have any difficulty in this
regard and were actually pleasantly surprised at the quick turn around. It
may be that there were mitigating circumstances in the other cases. As I am
not privy to the details I cannot make much further comment. My own
experience has been one of ease and lack of complication. I thought it might
be nice to offer it as a positive example for the system currently in place.

Back to the gens issue: We deliberated on our choice for gens and picked
our Roman names with great care. Selecting names was not dissimilar to
selecting a name for a new baby for us and we did a lot of research. I,
myself, would not join a group with frivolous intent. I am sure there are
some who might. But, it has been my experience that situation usually
resolves itself by the person(s) leaving the group in a similar frivolous
("on a whim") sort of way.

When we established the gens "Varia" it was with deliberate and purposeful
intent. In the process we had the choice of making the membership for others
"open," "by approval," or "closed." For the time being, we chose "open" and
know that we can change that status at any time. This gives us a great deal
of "control" over the membership. We left it "open" because we don't
anticipate a flood of new members (or old ones for that matter) who want to
join just because they think the name is "cool." I suppose it could happen,
but if it did, I could rethink the status for membership and change it if I
wanted to. Likewise, if someone joined the gens and then found they were
completely incompatible with the other members I certainly would not want
them to continue as a member. Who would want to gather people around them
that didn't get along? I mean, I enjoy a good debate as much as the next
person, but if someone really doesn't like me I don't have any intention of
"forcing" them to participate.

I do know from life experience that there are people who have control
issues. In fact, I have found that most conflicts arise from control issues
of one sort or another. It is my humble opinion that this may be the case
regarding the issues surrounding this debate. Who has control? In the end the
answer is (whether we like it or not) always "each person only has control
over themselves." Oh, sure, arguments can be made regarding historic
precedents where one person (or a group of people) forced others to do this
that or the other thing and I'm not going to get into a debate about using
physical force -- because then we are talking about differences between
"right" and "wrong" on a more global scale. But, in this situation, each
person really does have choices. For consideration:

1. The choice to join NR in the first place.
2. The choice to join an existing gens or create a new one
3. The choice to contact the other members of the gens *before* joining.
4. The choice to research, participate in the sharing of information and
familiarize one's self *prior* to making the above choices.
5. The choice to make a gens "open," "approval required," or "closed."
6. The choice to set the "tone" of the gens as "restrictive" or not.
7. The choice to try and control others or not.

These are all choices. Careful exploration during the membership process
will probably allow for choices compatible with the needs of the individuals
involved. If that is the case then the members of a gens will probably end up
having similar points of view and opinions. If a member does not *choose* to
explore the options before hand then the resulting conflicts should easily be
resolved by making other choices. So, does a member have choices? Yes. Does
the paterfamilias have choices? Yes. Can a paterfamilias control other
members of the gens? No. Unless we go back to the debate about physical
violence and coercive techniques. And, quite frankly, if a paterfamilias was
based on that sort of process, I would think it would be in the best
interests of the group at large to discuss the issue and find a resolution
that would preclude such behavior in future.

It has never been my experience that any group can legislate behavior.
People will make choices for themselves and take actions when they feel the
need to do so. Do I have an objection to a member of a gens deciding to move
to another gens or create their own? No. Do I believe the head of a gens can
control the members of it? No. Do I think people can work cooperatively in
groups for common goals? Absolutely. Do I think laws are required to make
people do so? No, I don't believe that is possible.

What I do believe is: laws are required to handle situations where one
person is infringing on another's right to make their own choices. People
shouldn't do that, even if it does have precedence in history. It is my
humble opinion that anyone who wants to force a choice on another person is
doing something wrong. Each person should make choices for themselves and
respect the choices of others. I certainly would not willingly participate in
any organization that promotes forced control of others and limits their
ability to make the choices they feel are right for them. I am quite
confident that train of thought is in keeping with the values and tenets of
this organization. If I find it is not, I will most certainly know what
choice I will have to make at that time.

Oh, and as another aside: I was surprised to read there had been conflicts
regarding members personal political leanings (i.e. "Communists"). As with
personal choices in religion, I would never presume to intrude into anyone
else's political affiliations. It is my understanding that the obligations of
the organization are the *public* acknowledgement of the state religion and
one's private beliefs are not involved. I would hope that this would be the
case with regards to their political affiliatons as well. Bad enough to live
in a world filled with issues regarding differences of political and
religious beliefs. A terrible idea to purposefully create one. Of course I
realize that individuals cannot be completely devoid of bigotries, we're all
human and have strong opinions about one thing or another. But, creating a
larger organization with the intent to discourage personal freedom in
political and religious belief systems would certainly not be a *choice* I
would make.

Valete,
Marcus Varius Pullus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:07:59 EDT

Salve,

Perhaps I've missed a thread, but this is the first I've seen of this, and I
can find nothing in the archives.

Sulla, if you believe there is a problem with the Constitution as it stands
that would open Nova Roma up to lawsuits, it would probably be a good idea to
share your thoughts on the matter. Exactly what part do you believe is a
problem, and what do you suggest be done about it?

Valete ,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:

Avete Omnes,

I sued my former employer because they fired me because I am Jewish. I had
it in writing, from the President of the College. And I sued under grounds of
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. In other words, with the
way our Constitution is written this is just a problem waiting to happen.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] My thanks to Tribune Salix Astur
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:19:12 EDT

Salvete,

I would like to give my personal thanks to our Tribune Salix Astur for taking
the time to re-craft the Gens law to account for some of the excellent
amendment suggestions that were raised during public debate.

This issue has been a difficult one. Because of the disagreement between our
Consuls, (and a consular veto regarding the discussion of this law) it was
not possible to craft the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens law with the usual
amount of care and group effort.

The law, while workable (and in my opinion necessary) could indeed be
improved to cover the concerns of many Citizens. Halting the vote and
bringing it back to the drawing board while the debate was in full swing was
surely not an easy task - but it was a worthwhile one.

I look forward to seeing the new draft of the lex. I am sure the improvements
to the law will be worth the wait. :)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:39:16 -0700

Avete Omnes,

I will be sending a post to the Senate. You should receive it there shortly.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: cassius622@aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?

Salve,

Perhaps I've missed a thread, but this is the first I've seen of this, and I
can find nothing in the archives.

Sulla, if you believe there is a problem with the Constitution as it stands
that would open Nova Roma up to lawsuits, it would probably be a good idea to
share your thoughts on the matter. Exactly what part do you believe is a
problem, and what do you suggest be done about it?

Valete ,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:

Avete Omnes,

I sued my former employer because they fired me because I am Jewish. I had
it in writing, from the President of the College. And I sued under grounds of
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. In other words, with the
way our Constitution is written this is just a problem waiting to happen.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] A question since the thought popped into my head...
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 01:52:31 -0000

Salve,

For whatever reason a question popped into my head (and relax it has
nothing to do with gens <grin>). Are any members of The Collegium
Pontificum recognized by the laws of their macronational
jurisdictions as legally able to perform weddings? I'm not looking
to get hitched, just curious.

Pax,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] DEATH OF M.T.R. PRINCEPS SENATVS, SALVATORE C. RUTA!
From:	GAIVS IVLIANVS <ivlianvs309@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:22:10 -0700 (PDT)

SALVETE OMNES! For those of you Romani who know or
may not know within Nova Roma of the existience of
the M.T.R. (Movimento Tradizionale Romano/Traditional
Roman Movement) in Italy which is a similar group to
Nova Roma and to which I am allied with outside of
Nova Roma here in America, of the death and passing on
the 30th of IVNIVS or June of their PRINCEPS SENATVS,
and the Senior Paterfamilias of the Gens Aurelia
located in Messina, Sicily, of Frater SALVATOR
CLAVDIVS AVRELIVS RVTA (Salvatore C. Ruta)! He was 75
at the time of his death, and he was an important
member and early founder of Italy's M.T.R. of which I
have been in touch for years, starting in Aug. of
1991. Salvatore was a dear friend and Frater in the
authentic and traditional practice of Religio Romana,
and my instructor and Mentor in the Roman MOS MAIORVM!

Unlike Nova Roma, the M.T.R. at the present ONLY
practices the SACRA PRIVATA and NOT the SACRA PVBLICA!
There are reasons for this, the most important being
that until enough Pagan Romani and Gentes can elect
public magistrates within the present Italian
government and restore the traditional RES PVBLICA
they are working FIRST towards a grass roots movement
to build up the Religio as was originally done in
ancient times from Romulus and Numa, before the STATE
really came into being! However they have had (the
M.T.R.) several semi-public weddings, including the
"Confarreatio" conducted by their PROMAGISTER, Frater
Renato Del Ponte, Senior Paterfamilias of the Gens
Pico-Martia in Pontremoli, Italy. In fact there are
several Gentes of the M.T.R. very active now in Italy.
In Sicily is the Gens Aurelia and Gens Castoria. In
the north of Italy, Gens Pico-Martia and Gens
Apollinaris, and in Roma the Gens Iulia Primigenia!
The only Internet website the M.T.R. has is through
"La Cittadella" the now official publication of the
movement, headed by Gens Aurelia Frater Sandro
Consolato in Messina.
The M.T.R. is in fact the source to
many of the prayers and rituals I supplied to our
honored Pontifex Maximus, Marcus Cassius Iulianus
under the listing "Rituals of the M.T.R. Italy."
For
the dedicated work and devotion that Salvatore Ruta
has done for the modern restoration of Religio Romana
in Italy I know he now has a place among the Dii
Immortales! By me he will be missed! SALVE ATQVE VALE
SALVATOR CLAVDI AVRELI RVTA! FRATER, GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 19:07:42 -0700

Avete Senator et Omnes,

Well, there are two problems as I see it. I could be wrong, that would not be the first time. But, I have researched a bit of this (and have experienced it though not in NR) and I don't think that I am.

Here are the two problems:

1. First, within the micronation. There can and WILL be the problem of citizens suing each other for violations of their rights. This will happen because of the very nature of the soverignty clause.

EXAMPLE: An example of this would be a citizen wants to leave a gens and join the Gens Cornelia. I deny it. Based on the Soverignty Clause he could bring me to the Praetors for violating his Constitutional Right. In addition to this there is technically nothing stopping that individual from suing the Corporation for not enforcing its bylaws.

2. This issue is potentially worse. Becuase of the soverignty clause is located in the Constitution of Nova Roma (which is also our Bylaws) any citizen who feels that the bylaws are being violated (By a Pater, by a Magistrate, or by anyone) can simply file a lawsuit against Nova Roma.

EXAMPLE: A Potential example is a Gens within Nova Roma that restricts itself to Just Roman Pagan, and I, as a Jew wanted to get into that Gens but was denied, there is technically nothing preventing me from filing a lawsuit in the State of California that Nova Roma is in breech of their charter. Of course I would have to include all Does 1-100 (thats all of the potential defendants, that would include the Senate (Board of Directors). This is because of the soverignty clause.

EXAMPLE II: Since Nova Roma is just a not for profit corporation (but not a Church) legally we do not have the right to discriminate christians in respect to the officies of the Religio. Any rejection that you or other Ponitffs have sent to those applicants citing that they cannot be a Religio Priest could be grounds for a lawsuit as discrimination is against the law. All it takes is one person to file that lawsuit. This is the case because we are a secular not for profit corporation. The only way we can get this type of protection is if we became incorporated as a Church. Since all Secular Not for Profit Corporations are banned from discrimination.

And quite frankly, its going to be very hard to incorporate as a church when NR allows non-Pagans to be members. Again, our Bylaws are a problem because they expressly protect as it has been adequately pointed out on the ML.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul of Nova Roma
----- Original Message -----
From: cassius622@aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?

Salve,

Perhaps I've missed a thread, but this is the first I've seen of this, and I
can find nothing in the archives.

Sulla, if you believe there is a problem with the Constitution as it stands
that would open Nova Roma up to lawsuits, it would probably be a good idea to
share your thoughts on the matter. Exactly what part do you believe is a
problem, and what do you suggest be done about it?

Valete ,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:

Avete Omnes,

I sued my former employer because they fired me because I am Jewish. I had
it in writing, from the President of the College. And I sued under grounds of
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. In other words, with the
way our Constitution is written this is just a problem waiting to happen.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: DEATH OF M.T.R. PRINCEPS SENATVS, SALVATORE C. RUTA!
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 02:51:50 -0000

---Salve:

I thank you for informing us; I will remember him in my prayers...in
the celebration of his life in pursuing the Roman ideal, and his safe
passage from this life to the next.

I am sure other Nova Romani will join me in this undertaking.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia
Praetor

In Nova-Roma@y..., GAIVS IVLIANVS <ivlianvs309@y...> wrote:
> SALVETE OMNES! For those of you Romani who know or
> may not know within Nova Roma of the existience of
> the M.T.R. (Movimento Tradizionale Romano/Traditional
> Roman Movement) in Italy which is a similar group to
> Nova Roma and to which I am allied with outside of
> Nova Roma here in America, of the death and passing on
> the 30th of IVNIVS or June of their PRINCEPS SENATVS,
> and the Senior Paterfamilias of the Gens Aurelia
> located in Messina, Sicily, of Frater SALVATOR
> CLAVDIVS AVRELIVS RVTA (Salvatore C. Ruta)! He was 75
> at the time of his death, and he was an important
> member and early founder of Italy's M.T.R. of which I
> have been in touch for years, starting in Aug. of
> 1991. Salvatore was a dear friend and Frater in the
> authentic and traditional practice of Religio Romana,
> and my instructor and Mentor in the Roman MOS MAIORVM!
>
> Unlike Nova Roma, the M.T.R. at the present ONLY
> practices the SACRA PRIVATA and NOT the SACRA PVBLICA!
> There are reasons for this, the most important being
> that until enough Pagan Romani and Gentes can elect
> public magistrates within the present Italian
> government and restore the traditional RES PVBLICA
> they are working FIRST towards a grass roots movement
> to build up the Religio as was originally done in
> ancient times from Romulus and Numa, before the STATE
> really came into being! However they have had (the
> M.T.R.) several semi-public weddings, including the
> "Confarreatio" conducted by their PROMAGISTER, Frater
> Renato Del Ponte, Senior Paterfamilias of the Gens
> Pico-Martia in Pontremoli, Italy. In fact there are
> several Gentes of the M.T.R. very active now in Italy.
> In Sicily is the Gens Aurelia and Gens Castoria. In
> the north of Italy, Gens Pico-Martia and Gens
> Apollinaris, and in Roma the Gens Iulia Primigenia!
> The only Internet website the M.T.R. has is through
> "La Cittadella" the now official publication of the
> movement, headed by Gens Aurelia Frater Sandro
> Consolato in Messina.
> The M.T.R. is in fact the source to
> many of the prayers and rituals I supplied to our
> honored Pontifex Maximus, Marcus Cassius Iulianus
> under the listing "Rituals of the M.T.R. Italy."
> For
> the dedicated work and devotion that Salvatore Ruta
> has done for the modern restoration of Religio Romana
> in Italy I know he now has a place among the Dii
> Immortales! By me he will be missed! SALVE ATQVE VALE
> SALVATOR CLAVDI AVRELI RVTA! FRATER, GAIVS IVLIVS IVLIANVS
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 03:05:13 -0000

---

Salve Consul Sulla:

I gather from your post prior to this one that the text herein was
supposed to go to the Senate?

I get this impression from it's language. I will comment here or in
chambers, your choice :) If it was meant for the Senate, I will
honour this, although I cannot restrict the opinions of others on
what has appeared within this post.

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Senator et Omnes,
>
> Well, there are two problems as I see it. I could be wrong, that
would not be the first time. But, I have researched a bit of this
(and have experienced it though not in NR) and I don't think that I
am.
>
> Here are the two problems:
>
> 1. First, within the micronation. There can and WILL be the
problem of citizens suing each other for violations of their rights.
This will happen because of the very nature of the soverignty
clause.
>
> EXAMPLE: An example of this would be a citizen wants to leave a
gens and join the Gens Cornelia. I deny it. Based on the Soverignty
Clause he could bring me to the Praetors for violating his
Constitutional Right. In addition to this there is technically
nothing stopping that individual from suing the Corporation for not
enforcing its bylaws.
>
> 2. This issue is potentially worse. Becuase of the soverignty
clause is located in the Constitution of Nova Roma (which is also our
Bylaws) any citizen who feels that the bylaws are being violated (By
a Pater, by a Magistrate, or by anyone) can simply file a lawsuit
against Nova Roma.
>
> EXAMPLE: A Potential example is a Gens within Nova Roma that
restricts itself to Just Roman Pagan, and I, as a Jew wanted to get
into that Gens but was denied, there is technically nothing
preventing me from filing a lawsuit in the State of California that
Nova Roma is in breech of their charter. Of course I would have to
include all Does 1-100 (thats all of the potential defendants, that
would include the Senate (Board of Directors). This is because of
the soverignty clause.
>
> EXAMPLE II: Since Nova Roma is just a not for profit corporation
(but not a Church) legally we do not have the right to discriminate
christians in respect to the officies of the Religio. Any rejection
that you or other Ponitffs have sent to those applicants citing that
they cannot be a Religio Priest could be grounds for a lawsuit as
discrimination is against the law. All it takes is one person to
file that lawsuit. This is the case because we are a secular not for
profit corporation. The only way we can get this type of protection
is if we became incorporated as a Church. Since all Secular Not for
Profit Corporations are banned from discrimination.
>
> And quite frankly, its going to be very hard to incorporate as a
church when NR allows non-Pagans to be members. Again, our Bylaws
are a problem because they expressly protect as it has been
adequately pointed out on the ML.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul of Nova Roma
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: cassius622@a...
> To: Nova-Roma@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:07 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Perhaps I've missed a thread, but this is the first I've seen of
this, and I
> can find nothing in the archives.
>
> Sulla, if you believe there is a problem with the Constitution as
it stands
> that would open Nova Roma up to lawsuits, it would probably be a
good idea to
> share your thoughts on the matter. Exactly what part do you
believe is a
> problem, and what do you suggest be done about it?
>
> Valete ,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Senator
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:
>
> Avete Omnes,
>
> I sued my former employer because they fired me because I am
Jewish. I had
> it in writing, from the President of the College. And I sued
under grounds of
> violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. In other
words, with the
> way our Constitution is written this is just a problem waiting to
happen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@y...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:05:21 -0700

Please comment in the Senate. It was my intention to replace the Nova Roma addy with the Senate address. Thank you.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: pompeia_cornelia
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:05 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?

---

Salve Consul Sulla:

I gather from your post prior to this one that the text herein was
supposed to go to the Senate?

I get this impression from it's language. I will comment here or in
chambers, your choice :) If it was meant for the Senate, I will
honour this, although I cannot restrict the opinions of others on
what has appeared within this post.

Bene vale,
Pompeia

In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Senator et Omnes,
>
> Well, there are two problems as I see it. I could be wrong, that
would not be the first time. But, I have researched a bit of this
(and have experienced it though not in NR) and I don't think that I
am.
>
> Here are the two problems:
>
> 1. First, within the micronation. There can and WILL be the
problem of citizens suing each other for violations of their rights.
This will happen because of the very nature of the soverignty
clause.
>
> EXAMPLE: An example of this would be a citizen wants to leave a
gens and join the Gens Cornelia. I deny it. Based on the Soverignty
Clause he could bring me to the Praetors for violating his
Constitutional Right. In addition to this there is technically
nothing stopping that individual from suing the Corporation for not
enforcing its bylaws.
>
> 2. This issue is potentially worse. Becuase of the soverignty
clause is located in the Constitution of Nova Roma (which is also our
Bylaws) any citizen who feels that the bylaws are being violated (By
a Pater, by a Magistrate, or by anyone) can simply file a lawsuit
against Nova Roma.
>
> EXAMPLE: A Potential example is a Gens within Nova Roma that
restricts itself to Just Roman Pagan, and I, as a Jew wanted to get
into that Gens but was denied, there is technically nothing
preventing me from filing a lawsuit in the State of California that
Nova Roma is in breech of their charter. Of course I would have to
include all Does 1-100 (thats all of the potential defendants, that
would include the Senate (Board of Directors). This is because of
the soverignty clause.
>
> EXAMPLE II: Since Nova Roma is just a not for profit corporation
(but not a Church) legally we do not have the right to discriminate
christians in respect to the officies of the Religio. Any rejection
that you or other Ponitffs have sent to those applicants citing that
they cannot be a Religio Priest could be grounds for a lawsuit as
discrimination is against the law. All it takes is one person to
file that lawsuit. This is the case because we are a secular not for
profit corporation. The only way we can get this type of protection
is if we became incorporated as a Church. Since all Secular Not for
Profit Corporations are banned from discrimination.
>
> And quite frankly, its going to be very hard to incorporate as a
church when NR allows non-Pagans to be members. Again, our Bylaws
are a problem because they expressly protect as it has been
adequately pointed out on the ML.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul of Nova Roma
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: cassius622@a...
> To: Nova-Roma@y...
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 6:07 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Problem with the Constitution?
>
>
> Salve,
>
> Perhaps I've missed a thread, but this is the first I've seen of
this, and I
> can find nothing in the archives.
>
> Sulla, if you believe there is a problem with the Constitution as
it stands
> that would open Nova Roma up to lawsuits, it would probably be a
good idea to
> share your thoughts on the matter. Exactly what part do you
believe is a
> problem, and what do you suggest be done about it?
>
> Valete ,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Senator
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla writes:
>
> Avete Omnes,
>
> I sued my former employer because they fired me because I am
Jewish. I had
> it in writing, from the President of the College. And I sued
under grounds of
> violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991. In other
words, with the
> way our Constitution is written this is just a problem waiting to
happen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Reply to Sulla (short!)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:12:23 EDT

Salvete Omnes ,

Consul Sulla intended his "Constitutional" post to go to the Senate rather
than the main list. Unfortunately, he sent it here. I can think of no
adequate way to 'get the cat back in the bag' so to speak, so I'll do my best
to answer his post as briefly as possible.

In a nutshell, Consul Sulla first declares that we have a problem with
Section II.B.6 of the Constitution: "The right to remain sovereign and
secure within one's own home, person, and property."

Sulla maintains that this clause would make it possible for Citizens to sue
Nova Roma for Civil rights violations if they were to be denied anything. His
examples included a Citizen not being allowed into a Gens for various
reasons, and then suing NR because their "civil rights" were being violated.

Hopefully, better legal minds than mine can approach this issue. I personally
don't understand Sulla's underlying argument. To my knowledge a person's
whims are not necessarily 'civil rights' that automatically supersede the
legal bylaws of an organization. Especially so long as those bylaws do not
break a macronational law. (In example, Citizens are guaranteed Citizenship,
not the Gens of their choice no matter what.)

Sulla's examples seem to be applicable to almost any situation - including a
Citizen suing for civil rights violation because they were denied the right
to LEAVE a Gens, or for denying a new Citizens' demand to appoint them
"Consul" without a Comitiae vote on the day they join!

The second section of Sulla's post concerns offices in the Religio Romana.
Sulla believes that it is 'illegal' under our current constitution not to
allow non-Pagan Citizens to occupy religious offices. (And by the same logic,
any office they might decide to claim, including Pontiff!)

Our Constitution guarantees Citizenship, and the holding of secular offices
to People of all faiths. The Religio, however, is placed under the care of
the Pontiffs who have the power to accept or deny applications as they see
fit. There is also a clause prohibiting intentional blasphemy of the gods by
officials, which Sulla's example would clearly be.

One final comment - although I have serious doubts about the validity of the
points Consul Sulla has raised, I would be *most* interested in seeing his
solution to this problem he percieves. Perhaps that might make the whole
issue more clear.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pontifex Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Fee for Gens Transfers
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:55:29 -0700 (PDT)

I think there's an issue that is being overlooked in
all this talk of imposing a fee on people who wish to
leave one gens for another without more reason than
personal whim.

How do you propose to collect the proposed fee and
enforce payment? If people refuse to pay such a fee,
what sort of punitive measures could be taken?

I really think that both the fee and the enforcement
of it (and possible NSF incidents) would be far more
trouble to administrate than they are worth.

To me, this is an amusing idea, but not one I would
really want to see made into law. All it would do in
the end is generate needless paperwork. Surely our
magistrates have more important things to do than make
sure that fees imposed on gens hoppers are paid. And
if this practice can't be enforced effectively, I see
little sense in pursuing it.

---
Renata Corva

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Reply to Sulla (short!)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:57:14 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,
If we were organized as a temple, that is a Pagan
religous organization, we could place limits on who
can serve in offices based on their religous
affliation.

If we are organized as a Secular NPC (Which I beleave
is the case) we could be found in violation of US
civil rights laws that forbid discrimination based on
Religion.

Religious organizations can limit religious offices to
members of the faith. In a Secular organization it's
another matter. Since our Pontiffs are primarly doing
research work at the present an argument could be made
that doing research could be handled by a person of
any faith.

One "protection" we have is that the current size of
the treasury means we aren't worth the effort of suing
if someone is after a monatary award. If they were
suing us for spite, that is another matter.

I Think we would have a good chance of winning, but
that is the opinion of a layman, not an lawyer. The
biggest danger that we would face is being unable to
afford the costs of hiring a lawyer to defend us,
which could result in a loss by default.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> Salvete Omnes ,
>
> Consul Sulla intended his "Constitutional" post to
> go to the Senate rather
> than the main list. Unfortunately, he sent it here.
> I can think of no
> adequate way to 'get the cat back in the bag' so to
> speak, so I'll do my best
> to answer his post as briefly as possible.
>
> In a nutshell, Consul Sulla first declares that we
> have a problem with
> Section II.B.6 of the Constitution: "The right to
> remain sovereign and
> secure within one's own home, person, and property."
>
>
> Sulla maintains that this clause would make it
> possible for Citizens to sue
> Nova Roma for Civil rights violations if they were
> to be denied anything. His
> examples included a Citizen not being allowed into a
> Gens for various
> reasons, and then suing NR because their "civil
> rights" were being violated.
>
> Hopefully, better legal minds than mine can approach
> this issue. I personally
> don't understand Sulla's underlying argument. To my
> knowledge a person's
> whims are not necessarily 'civil rights' that
> automatically supersede the
> legal bylaws of an organization. Especially so long
> as those bylaws do not
> break a macronational law. (In example, Citizens are
> guaranteed Citizenship,
> not the Gens of their choice no matter what.)
>
> Sulla's examples seem to be applicable to almost any
> situation - including a
> Citizen suing for civil rights violation because
> they were denied the right
> to LEAVE a Gens, or for denying a new Citizens'
> demand to appoint them
> "Consul" without a Comitiae vote on the day they
> join!
>
> The second section of Sulla's post concerns offices
> in the Religio Romana.
> Sulla believes that it is 'illegal' under our
> current constitution not to
> allow non-Pagan Citizens to occupy religious
> offices. (And by the same logic,
> any office they might decide to claim, including
> Pontiff!)
>
> Our Constitution guarantees Citizenship, and the
> holding of secular offices
> to People of all faiths. The Religio, however, is
> placed under the care of
> the Pontiffs who have the power to accept or deny
> applications as they see
> fit. There is also a clause prohibiting intentional
> blasphemy of the gods by
> officials, which Sulla's example would clearly be.
>
> One final comment - although I have serious doubts
> about the validity of the
> points Consul Sulla has raised, I would be *most*
> interested in seeing his
> solution to this problem he percieves. Perhaps that
> might make the whole
> issue more clear.
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Senator, Pontifex Maximus
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gentes et Familiae
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 21:30:31 -0700 (PDT)

Limitanus--Ah, you beat me to it! (g) I like your
suggestion very much and was going to suggest
something similar.

One idea I'd like to toss into the melting pot
is--Have membership in a gens be mandatory and
accomplished upon registering as a citizen, but have
membership in a familia not be mandatory. That way,
you still pick which gens you belong to, when you
join, but whether you later join a familia or not is
entirely up to you, and if you wish, you need never
join one. This is pretty much the same thing as you
say below, with the added idea that it could be
possible to never join a familia, at all.

---Michel Loos said:---
Wouldn't the following system be better for all?

> 1) Removal of the figure of "paterfamilas gentis",
changed to a "patergentis" with little power:
acceptance of new citizens in his gens,
only.

2) Creation of families inside the gentes, with a
Paterfamilias with extended powers.

3) No citizen is forced to belong to a familiae,
joining can only be voluntary, expressed through the
mechanism of adrogatio/adoptio. A few-month period is
necessary between the letter of intent adrressed to
the censors and the effective adoption. As a
transitory measure, actual citizens that are citizens
for more then this period can immediately opt to be a
member of their former "paterfamilias gentis".

> 4) No citizen can change gens without this mechanism
of adoption. If he was not a member of a family he
needs to be adopted by one from another gens. If he
was a member of a family, an agreement must be found
between his current paterfamilias and his prospective
one.

---
Renata Corva

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Hand of Friendship to...
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:31:09 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Bruce Porter <celtic4usa@y...> wrote:
>
> HAIL Gaius Cassius Nerva
>
> Hreo of the day!!Gen Portica thanks you,and House Cussius.Let it be
know to Nova Roma Gen Portica gives there hands in friendship to Gaius
Cassius Nerva and Gen Cussius.......
>
> G.Porticus Brutis

Salve G. Portius Brutis

Thank you very much for your post, which I inadvertantly missed in
the deluge of posts on this list in last two days. I am happy to also
extend a hand of friendship. I cannot speak for the Gens Cassia as a
whole, since that is the sole perogative of the Paterfamilias. But I
am sure the rest of the Gens Cassia is with me in saying welcome to
Nova Roma.

I am glad you like my proposed compromise, though this idea hardly
qualifies me as a hero, and other compromise ideas have also been
proferred by others. Mine is not the only one!

I noticed your Gens has seven members and all of you entered Nova
Roma together this month of July. Were you all a bunch of "Rome
buffs" who found Nova Roma together online or at an event?

Gaius Cassius Nerva


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] To Nerva
From:	"pompeia_cornelia" <trog99@hotmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 04:39:28 -0000

Salve G. Cassius Nerva:

With respect to your constructive suggestions and an obvious attempt
to avert unnecessary negativity on the list during recent, rather
sensitive discussions, I want to publically give you a
resounding 'two thumbs up'

>From one citizen to another, many thanks.

Po


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] New citizen in Gallia
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:42:18 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete Omnes,

it is my pleasure to anounnce that Lucius Rutilius Minervalis has joined Nova
Roma and Provincia Gallia.
Welcome in our Nation!!

Respectfully,

=====
Sextus Apollonius Scipio
Propraetor Provinciae Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
French Translator

Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Religio Romana (was: Reply to Sulla)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:35:06 EDT

Salve,

Nova Roma's non-profit 501C3 is in a general category that includes
educational, cultural and *religious* efforts.

I personally am very doubtful that laws on 'discrimination' would apply to
offices of the Religio. ALL the offices in NR are attainable only by meeting
certain criteria. In the case of secular offices one must win election, (or
if 'under 21') be approved by the Senate, etc. The examples of
'discrimination' given so far has been so whimsical and broad that they would
seem to cover a Citizen not getting ANY position for any reason.

Just as we have some standards for secular offices that might bar the
acceptance of a candidate, we also have some religious standards. A person
applying for the Priesthood must have a certain level of knowledge about the
Religio. A person applying for the priesthood must have the necessary time to
do the Rites. A person applying for priesthood must truly worship the Gods -
in order to make the office credible in the eyes of the Citizens they would
be 'leading'.

If we were required by law to take in people that did not believe in the
Gods, I would imagine we would also be obliged to take in people with severe
mental retardation, even though they could not fulfill the other requirements
of the office...

However, there is actually little point to this argument. I'm pleased to say
that the Religio probably WILL end up being chartered as a separate 501C3
Church, under the overall 'umberalla' organization of Nova Roma. I actually
have the paperwork sitting right here beside me as I write. That status will
remove all question of whether or not denying a person who doesn't actually
worship the Gods would be a civil rights violation.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus

Licinius Drusus writes:

If we were organized as a temple, that is a Pagan
religous organization, we could place limits on who
can serve in offices based on their religous
affliation.

If we are organized as a Secular NPC (Which I beleave
is the case) we could be found in violation of US
civil rights laws that forbid discrimination based on
Religion.

Religious organizations can limit religious offices to
members of the faith. In a Secular organization it's
another matter. Since our Pontiffs are primarly doing
research work at the present an argument could be made
that doing research could be handled by a person of
any faith.

One "protection" we have is that the current size of
the treasury means we aren't worth the effort of suing
if someone is after a monatary award. If they were
suing us for spite, that is another matter.

I Think we would have a good chance of winning, but
that is the opinion of a layman, not an lawyer. The
biggest danger that we would face is being unable to
afford the costs of hiring a lawyer to defend us,
which could result in a loss by default.

L. Sicinius Drusus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 07:53:54 -0400

Lucius Sicinius writes:

> If we were organized as a temple, that is a Pagan
> religous organization, we could place limits on who
> can serve in offices based on their religous
> affliation.
>
> If we are organized as a Secular NPC (Which I beleave
> is the case) we could be found in violation of US
> civil rights laws that forbid discrimination based on
> Religion.
>

The official paperwork we have filed with the United States tax
authorities does not ask us to choose whether or not we are a religious
organization. Instead, it lumps us into a large category called
"charitable, religious, educational and/or scientific." Legally we're
entitled to be any of these. We have done a few charitable projects,
undertaken several educational efforts (not the least of which is our
Web site), and established a religious arm of our organization. We could
also, under this charter, undertake archaeological digs or other
scientific projects.

I believe the fact that Sulla has held the highest magistrate's office
(Censor) and currently holds a Consul's seat may serve as proof that
those who do not practice the Religio are nonetheless welcome and
encouraged to seek high office in our organization.

As a practical matter, it will be many years before we have enough
assets to be worth suing. Our current net worth would not cover a good
lawyer's retainer.

-----
Patricia Cassia
Senatrix et Sacerdos Minervalis
Nova Roma . pcassia@novaroma.org

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 06:59:13 -0700 (PDT)

--- Patricia Cassia <pcassia@novaroma.org> wrote:

SNIP
>
> I believe the fact that Sulla has held the highest
> magistrate's office
> (Censor) and currently holds a Consul's seat may
> serve as proof that
> those who do not practice the Religio are
> nonetheless welcome and
> encouraged to seek high office in our organization.
>

I'm at work right now. I am forbidden from hanging a
poster of a model in a swimsuit by my desk because it
could result in a sexual harrasment lawsuit. All it
would take is one woman claiming that the poster made
her uncomfortable. It wouldn't matter if no other
woman that worked here cared, and that a few of them
were turned on by my poster. All that matters is that
one woman felt the poster harrased her. Companies have
lost lawsuits over this.

It dosen't matter if we have had a 100 Monotheists
that had no problem with our oath. All that matters is
that one person felt that taking that oath would
violate his religious views. He has grounds for a
civil rights suit.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Fee for Gens Transfers
From:	"mcserapio" <mcserapio@yahoo.it>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:59:20 -0000

AVE RENATA CORVA

> How do you propose to collect the proposed fee and
> enforce payment? If people refuse to pay such a fee,
> what sort of punitive measures could be taken?

How to pay would be a matter the citizen himself should deal with.
(it is *he/she* who want to change his gens)
How to enforce the payment? Simple: why should we enforce it? If this
citizen pays, he will be able to change gens, otherwise he simply
remains in his actual one. No need to enforce.

VALE BENE
MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Digest No 90 : New citizen in Gallia
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:02:24 -0400

Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus SPD

I want to assure all those awaiting approval of their applications that *no
one* has been approved for citizenship. Those subject to approval will be
approved at the conclusion of voting (as soon as either my colleague or I
are able anyway).

As many of you know, especially the newer citizens, an automated welcome
email is sent to new citizens upon their approval.

Mars Nos Protegas

>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@yahoo.com>
> Subject: New citizen in Gallia
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> it is my pleasure to anounnce that Lucius Rutilius Minervalis has joined
Nova
> Roma and Provincia Gallia.
> Welcome in our Nation!!
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
> =====
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio
> Propraetor Provinciae Galliae
> Sodalitas Egressus, Acting Praefectus for France
> French Translator
>
> Terrarum dea gentiumque, Roma
> Cui par est nihil et nihil secundum.


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fee for Gens Transfers
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 09:04:19 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Mani Constantine,

> How to pay would be a matter the citizen himself should deal with.

The same way that we collect money now - paypal.com, or checks
received through the mail.

> How to enforce the payment? Simple: why should we enforce it? If this
> citizen pays, he will be able to change gens, otherwise he simply
> remains in his actual one. No need to enforce.

Exactly. The Censores will simply say to the citizen, "no changes
will be made until the necessary payment has been made."

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Edictum Aedilicium XVI - About the Program for the Ludi Romani
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:24:05 +0200

Ex Officio Curile Aedile Caeso Fabius Q.

Edictum Aedilicium XVI - About the Program for the Ludi Romani

My colleague as a Curule Aedile, Junior Curule Aedile Illustrus
Amulius Claudius Petrus has disappeared again. I have tried to
communicate with him through the .inofficial "Collegium Aediles" and
privately. He has not been heard of. I have asked for him in his
Home-provincia, not a sign! Therefore I will be forced to
unilaterally publish this edictum about the Program of the Ludi
Romani. The Program will be divided between us. In the case that
Illustrus Amulius Claudius Petrus doesn't reappear I will take care
of those events that are planned as joint ones as good as possible.
In case my colleague will reappear I will leave his part of the Ludi
untouched.

I. Opening of the games in a joint (or I will do it alone) Declaratio
and a religiuous celebration of Juppiter 5/9

II. Caeso Fabius Quintilianus:

II.I. The Sibilyan Oracle 7/9
II.II. Ludi Romani Cultural Award (LRCA) 9/9 (Deadline for the
inscriptions 10/9)
II.III. "Punic Wars", a virtual adventure or/and presentation project
"Herculaneum" 11/9,
II.IV. Ludi Romani Music Concert 13/9
II.V. Theatre: "A satyrical novel by Phaedrus" and the first turn of
Chariot races 15/9
II.VI. The Final of the chariot races 17/9

III.Amulius Claudius Petrus: 6/9, 8/9, 10/9, 12/9, 14/9, 16/9 and
18/9, Gladiator games and more

IV. Joint ending: 19/9 We declare the end of the game together (or I
will do it alone) in a joint Declaratio.

V. This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given August the 1st, in the year of the consulship of Marcus
Octavius Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, 2755 AUC.

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senior Curule Aedile
--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor of Thule
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Sodalitas Iuventutis Romanae"

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Edictum Propraetoricium LVI about the the right of the Procurator
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:17:32 +0200

Ex Officio Propraetoris Thulae

Edictum Propraetoricium LVI about the the right of the Procurator to
issue a "Decretum" in his own name or in the name of the Tresviri to
bestow ordinary and honorary Gradi Academici (Academic exams) upon
deserving Praeceptores and others who have worked for the Academia

I hereby delegate the right to bestow ordinary and honorary Gradi
Academici (Academic exams) upon deserving Praeceptores and others who
have worked for the Academia to the Procurator Academia Thules and
the Tresviri Academia Thules. As Propraetor Thules I still will keep
my right to issue an intercessio even in these cases.

I. The Procurator Academia Thules and The Tresviri Academia Thules
have the power to bestow Gradi Academici (Academic exams) to
individuals deserving this, based on their previous academic degrees
in other Universities, or other equal experiences approved of by the
Tresviri and/or their work within the Academia. Procedures for
granting these will be the same as bestowing Gradi Academici based on
studying in Academia (see Edictum Propraetoricium LII, Edictum
Propraetoricium LIII iand Edictum Propraetoricium LIV issued by the
Propraetor Thules in the year 2755), only the requirements would be
different and would be set case-by-case basis

II. The Tresviri has the right to bestow the Gradus of Doctor
Honoris Causa (Honorary Doctor) to any person that they think have
earned this honorary exam through the Procurator Academia Thules.

III. The Procurator must publish above bestowments in a "Decretum"
that he publishes at least at the Nova Roma main e-mail list.

IV. The Procurator will _not_ have the right to publish any
"Decretum" in any other issue than those concerning the bestowing
Gradi Academici (Academic exams).

V. This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given August 1st, in the year of the consulship of Marcus Octavius
Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix 2755 AUC.

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Propraetor Thules

--
Valete

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor of Thule
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules

The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an official opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Why Nova Roma?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 08:52:14 -0700 (PDT)

--- tlfortunatus <labienus@texas.net> wrote:
> T Labienus Fortunatus Quiritibus salutem plurimam
> dicit
>
SNIP
>
> Next, let us examine the word restoration. This
> means not only to
> return something to its original state, but also to
> renew or recover
> something. The difference in the two is subtle, but
> my preference
> for the second, combined with my personal
> interpretation of culture,
> means that I see our mission as an attempt to
> capture and revive the
> spirit of Roma. Note that this is not the same as
> recreating Her
> body.
>
I have done Automotive restorations, so I do know what
is involved in a restoration, and what is and isn't a
restoration. Some examples may br helpful here.

1967 Masaratti
This was a Full Restoration. The goal was to have a
show car as close to the condition it was in when it
set in thr dealers showroom as possible. Please note
the word possible. The Engine's valves were beyond
repair, and it was impossible to buy replacements. We
had to find valves that were allmost the same size as
the originals and make a minor modification to the
motor to make them fit. It was still considered a full
restoration because it was as close as possible. Cars
like this can't be driven without hurting their value
as a show car.

1953 Chevrolet Pickup truck
This was a partial restoration. The Goal was to have a
truck that could be driven. The Electrial system was
updated to 12 volts, modern headlights that looked
like the originals were added. Seat belts were
installed. The departures from original condition were
done for reliabilty or safety reasons.

1966 Shelby Mustang Replica
This was a restifaction. The word is a combination of
"restoration" and "modification". The Goal was to have
a car that looked like a rare and more valuable car.
We took a 1966 Ford Mustang and made the same
modifications as the Shleby company made to Mustangs
in 1966. This car was NOT restored, it was modified to
look like something else.

1937 Ford Hotrod
This was a custom car that the word "restoration"
couldn't remotly be applied to. The Goal was to have a
cool car for the weekends. The body was modified, the
engine and transmission weren't even made by Ford, let
alone being original. Features like Air Conditioning
and the automatic transmission weren't even availble
when the car was new.

The reason I staed what the Goal of each of these cars
was is because of two kit cars. Kit cars are
fiberglass bodies that look like an older car, but use
a modern engine. Both of these cars were replicas of
Ferraris. One used a Chevrolet engine and we called it
the Chevari. The other used a Ford Engine and was
known as the Fordari in the shop. The owner of the
Fordari had a Goal and stuck to it. In a few months he
was driving a car that looked like an early 1960's
model Ferrari. The Owner of The Chevari couldn't stick
to a goal. Everytime he saw a neat toy in a
performance book, he had to have it. When I left that
shop the car had been a work in progress for over 3
years and had never been driven except for short
drives to test out the latest addition.

Of all the cars I mentioned I would prefer Nova Roma
to be like the 1953 Chevrolet Pickup. That is close to
original, only making the changes that have to be made
to drive it on 21st century roads.

Right now we are the Chevari, a project without a
clear goal that is sitting in the shop while we argue
over what part to put on it this month.

L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:22:12 +0200

Salve Luci Sicini,

> DRUSUS:Before you dismiss "American" problems remember
> that Nova Roma is a nation of "immigrants" and we have
> had misunderstandings based on differing culture. This
> is something that the USA has far more experance with
> than the steerotypes might lead you to think.
>
> In the period 1990-2000, just 11 years 10.5 million
> people legally immigrated to the USA. This figure is
> 300,000 higher than the population of your Macronation
> in the year 2000.
>
> Note that I said "legally" This does not include a
> large nunber of illegal immigrants, who often
> outnumber the legal immigrants.
>
> We are far more diverse than you give us credit for,
> and well aware of the tensions that can be created by
> varrying cultures. I'll save you the effort of
> bringing the differences between the Flemings and
> Wallons. It's no greater than the diferences betweeen
> Hispanics and Anglos, and far less than the
> differences between either of these groups and the
> large number of Asians who immigrate to the USA.

While you are right in what you say, I fail to see what the implication of
this is on our discussion. I wasn't trying to say that cultural or racial
differences and the problems they create is typically American. I was trying
to point out that "minorities" suing someone for the slightest occasion is
(at least here) perceived to be an American thing. Not the problems, but the
response to these problems.

And if I may digress on the situation of my own macronation, the frictions
between Flemings and Wallons are nothing compared to the ultra-rightist
propaganda spewed in cities like Antwerp, where a good part of the
population has North African or Turkish roots, and fascist parties are
causing a lot of trouble. These people also have problems integrating and
adapting, and the local people often have problems accepting them. So, I am
aware of the problem mixing different cultures can bring. It's not because I
live in a country with 10 million inhabitants (spread over only a meagre 31
thousand square kilometres, mind you) that I don't know what's going on in
the world.

> I'm allready a citizen of a modern 21st century nation
> with a government loosely based on that of Ancient
> Rome. (The USA). Citizenship in a second one would be
> redundant.

You imply that "modernising" NR would turn it into the US. That's the old
argument of the slippery slope, which is logically false.

Vale bene,
Solaris

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Religio Romana (was: Reply to Sulla)
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:45:52 EDT

In a message dated 8/1/02 4:35:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
cassius622@aol.com writes:

> . I'm pleased to say
> that the Religio probably WILL end up being chartered as a separate 501C3
> Church, under the overall 'umberalla' organization of Nova Roma. I actually
>
> have the paperwork sitting right here beside me as I write. That status
> will
> remove all question of whether or not denying a person who doesn't actually
>
> worship the Gods would be a civil rights violation.
>

Salvete
This is an excellent move, and should calm some people's fears.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: legal question
From:	Marcus Vitellius Ligus <mvitelliusligus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:03:33 -0700 (PDT)

"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm at work right now. I am forbidden from hanging a
poster of a model in a swimsuit by my desk because it
could result in a sexual harrasment lawsuit. All it
would take is one woman claiming that the poster made
her uncomfortable. It wouldn't matter if no other
woman that worked here cared, and that a few of them
were turned on by my poster. All that matters is that
one woman felt the poster harrased her. Companies have
lost lawsuits over this.

It dosen't matter if we have had a 100 Monotheists
that had no problem with our oath. All that matters is
that one person felt that taking that oath would
violate his religious views. He has grounds for a
civil rights suit.

I must admit you're absolutely right. In these days of frivolous lawsuits and idiotic judges awarding massive settlements for ridiculous lawsuits, it's not unreasonable to believe that NR could be sued for religious persecution based upon Drusus' outline...and they would probably win. At the rate things are going, I figure a person could probably pick a company at random and sue them for no other reason than not having a reason to sue them...and probably be awarded damages...Another good example would be suing of an aircraft manufacturer for a crash that caused the loss of life while flying an aircraft manufactured in the 1960's. It has happened in the past, and the only reason it doesn't happen as much now is former Pres Clinton managed to get it limited to aircraft younger than 18 years...But that's another story alltogether...

Off my soapbox...

M. Vitellius Ligus
Optio, Legio III Avgvsta
Paterfamilias, Gens Vitellia, Nova Roma

---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:44:44 -0400

Salve M. Octavius,

> You imply that "modernising" NR would turn it into the US. That's the old
> argument of the slippery slope, which is logically false.

In other words, it's illogical to make the statement categorically
without showing how the initial proposition will necessarily devolve to
the final conclusion. While it is not certain that we will arrive at a
thoroughly modernized society, the fear is that this law (among other
things) will continue to set a precendent that will make it easier and
more likely that we will arrive not at a "restoration" but a mere shell
of what we aimed for. It's a fear of possibility and precedent; a fear
that a pattern will continue that we find unacceptable.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?
From:	MVariusPM@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:18:06 EDT

In a message dated 7/31/02 9:10:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
alexious@earthlink.net writes:

> And quite frankly, its going to be very hard to incorporate as a church when
> NR allows non-Pagans to be members.

Salveto,

It wouldn't be a problem to form a church that allowed a variety of belief
systems. It's already been done. For reference: <A HREF="http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/index.html">Unitarian Universalist
Assocation: About Unitarian Universalism</A> The UUAs allow pagans, non-pagans,
heathens (self described), Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos, etc. etc. They
do not discriminate based on personal spritual beliefs, sexual orientation,
ethnic background, economic background, or gender (including all the
varieties of trans). They've been around for a long time and have a decent
international membership.

However, that doesn't make any difference as far as protection from
lawsuits goes. Churches can be sued like any other institution. Being a
non-profit ecclesiastical organization doesn't exempt from legal action.
Latest example: Catholic Church vs. (fill in the blank).

On the flip side, an organization can not protect itself completely from
legal action. There will always be risk that a member will become disgruntled
and make claims against the organization. In my humble opinion, a judge would
probably throw a case out of court if a person actually filed a lawsuit
because someone "wouldn't let them join the gens they wanted to." Honestly,
that is one of the silliest (read: petty) things I've heard in ages.

Valete,
M. Varius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:28:45 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Vari

> It wouldn't be a problem to form a church that allowed a variety of belief
> systems. It's already been done. For reference:
> <A HREF="http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/index.html">Unitarian Universalist
> Assocation: About Unitarian Universalism</A> The UUAs allow pagans,

Indeed, I used to be part of a Chicago-based pagan group where the senior
members were members of the local UUA church. The Unitarian-Universalists
seemed to have survived very well while accepting a diverse membership.

> On the flip side, an organization can not protect itself completely from
> legal action. There will always be risk that a member will become disgruntled
> and make claims against the organization.

True... it is impossible to be completely safe from lawsuits these days.

All that we can do is minimize the risk by ensuring that we act as we
say we will, and apply our own rules fairly and equitably.

> In my humble opinion, a judge would
> probably throw a case out of court if a person actually filed a lawsuit
> because someone "wouldn't let them join the gens they wanted to."

Or, if someone insisted on being recognized as a priest in a religion they
did not themselves believe in.

There's the possibility that we'd have to pay for a lawyer, but any
reasonably competent one could get such frivolous suits dismissed.

> Honestly,
> that is one of the silliest (read: petty) things I've heard in ages.

I think protecting ourselves is a legitimate concern, but there's no
need to take caution to extremes.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:36:30 -0700 (PDT)

--- "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
wrote:
> Salve Luci Sicini,
>
> > DRUSUS:Before you dismiss "American" problems
> remember
> > that Nova Roma is a nation of "immigrants" and we
> have
> > had misunderstandings based on differing culture.
> This
> > is something that the USA has far more experance
> with
> > than the steerotypes might lead you to think.
> >
> > In the period 1990-2000, just 11 years 10.5
> million
> > people legally immigrated to the USA. This figure
> is
> > 300,000 higher than the population of your
> Macronation
> > in the year 2000.
> >
> > Note that I said "legally" This does not include a
> > large nunber of illegal immigrants, who often
> > outnumber the legal immigrants.
> >
> > We are far more diverse than you give us credit
> for,
> > and well aware of the tensions that can be created
> by
> > varrying cultures. I'll save you the effort of
> > bringing the differences between the Flemings and
> > Wallons. It's no greater than the diferences
> betweeen
> > Hispanics and Anglos, and far less than the
> > differences between either of these groups and the
> > large number of Asians who immigrate to the USA.
>
> While you are right in what you say, I fail to see
> what the implication of
> this is on our discussion. I wasn't trying to say
> that cultural or racial
> differences and the problems they create is
> typically American. I was trying
> to point out that "minorities" suing someone for the
> slightest occasion is
> (at least here) perceived to be an American thing.
> Not the problems, but the
> response to these problems.
>
Americans don't sue because they are Americans, they
sue because they can sue. If we start introducing
Civil rights leges they are worthless without a means
of enforcement. That means either Civil or Criminal
penalities. Civil Penalities mean law suits. Criminal
Penalities mean fines. If Civil Rights are a Civil
offense (like the USA) it won't be long before
European Nova Romans are as sue happy as American Nova
Romans. If it's criminal it won't be long before the
thin skinned are running to the Praetors "at the drop
of a hat" regardless of the Macronation they are from.

> And if I may digress on the situation of my own
> macronation, the frictions
> between Flemings and Wallons are nothing compared to
> the ultra-rightist
> propaganda spewed in cities like Antwerp, where a
> good part of the
> population has North African or Turkish roots, and
> fascist parties are
> causing a lot of trouble. These people also have
> problems integrating and
> adapting, and the local people often have problems
> accepting them. So, I am
> aware of the problem mixing different cultures can
> bring. It's not because I
> live in a country with 10 million inhabitants
> (spread over only a meagre 31
> thousand square kilometres, mind you) that I don't
> know what's going on in
> the world.

Hmmmm, lawyers or facists? Can we shoot both of them?
;o)

>
> > I'm allready a citizen of a modern 21st century
> nation
> > with a government loosely based on that of Ancient
> > Rome. (The USA). Citizenship in a second one would
> be
> > redundant.
>
> You imply that "modernising" NR would turn it into
> the US. That's the old
> argument of the slippery slope, which is logically
> false.
>
> Vale bene,
> Solaris
>
>
OK you talked me into it, we go modern! But late 19th
and early 20th century statism isn't modern enough, we
need the latest and the greatest, Libertarianism. I'll
start drafting a new Constitution based on Libertarian
ideals to present to the Jr. Consul

Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:42:57 +0200

Salve Marce Corneli,

> In other words, it's illogical to make the statement categorically
> without showing how the initial proposition will necessarily devolve to
> the final conclusion. While it is not certain that we will arrive at a
> thoroughly modernized society, the fear is that this law (among other
> things) will continue to set a precendent that will make it easier and
> more likely that we will arrive not at a "restoration" but a mere shell
> of what we aimed for. It's a fear of possibility and precedent; a fear
> that a pattern will continue that we find unacceptable.

I understand that. But the essence of fear is that it's usually based on
things you don't or can't know.

I personally don't see how a law that reinforces the (appearently
constitutionally implied) right of each individual to break affilitation
with a name that said individual for some reason comes to reject, will lead
to the implementation of further legislation that is akin to modern
legislation in 21st century democracies. It's not wrong to reason according
to probable or likely scenarios, but here in NR I think there are no analog
cases to back this assumption up. It makes the "slippery slope" scenario as
probable as any other realistic scenario.

My personal thoughts on this matter are that much fuss is made about nothing
much: most likely this law will not have any major effects on gentes. Why?
For a start, most gentes aren't terribly active. Even among the active ones
the - unrealistic - authority of the pater- or materfamilias is in reality
very limited, and the gens remains a rather loose, relaxed association of
people. Having eliminated these two groups already, only a few gentes will
remain on the list. And will they suffer from "gens hoppers". I doubt it.
People usually have serious reasons for leaving a gens, and secondly,
Nerva's compromise that's being worked on provides for a prevention of
randomly changing your name each month.

Additionally, I don't think anything is wrong with safeguarding the rights
of the individual. Nova Roma is in the first place a religious and cultural
recreation of Roma Antiqua, and far less so a political one, and certainly
not a social one. Some people here seem to attempt to do the opposite. Would
people here really want this micronation to be an anachronism? I'm sorry
folks, but if the Roman Empire had survived, it sure would have evolved.
Good progression is progression that benefits everyone, and if a -
potentially - powerful minority loses some of their imagined power in that
process, that's too bad.

Bene vale!
Marcus Octavius Solaris


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:56:26 -0700 (PDT)

--- "M. Octavius Solaris" <hendrik.meuleman@pi.be>
wrote:
SNIP
> Additionally, I don't think anything is wrong with
> safeguarding the rights
> of the individual.

As long as rights are defined according to the
Libertarian concept that rights are only violated
through the use of force.

Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Slippery Slope (was Gens Hopping)
From:	Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus <gualterus@erudition.net>
Date:	Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:49:24 -0400

Salve,

> I personally don't see how a law that reinforces the (appearently
> constitutionally implied) right of each individual to break affilitation
> with a name that said individual for some reason comes to reject, will lead
> to the implementation of further legislation that is akin to modern
> legislation in 21st century democracies.

It would happen one law at a time, gradually creeping up on us. It's
better to make a stand now than gamble on the future. That the
sovereignty clause might be interpreted by some as allowing this "right"
is also a problem, and should be removed *along with* revamping the
gens/family system.

> My personal thoughts on this matter are that much fuss is made about nothing
> much: most likely this law will not have any major effects on gentes. Why?

I agree tht this law won't have much practical effect. This then touches
on my first line of opposition: it's superfluous.

> For a start, most gentes aren't terribly active. Even among the active ones
> the - unrealistic - authority of the pater- or materfamilias is in reality
> very limited, and the gens remains a rather loose, relaxed association of
> people. Having eliminated these two groups already, only a few gentes will
> remain on the list. And will they suffer from "gens hoppers". I doubt it.

The hopping doesn't have to be rampant to break the principle of the
issue. But, while we're enforcing a tradition power relationship in a
family - which is what a gens functionally right is (in other words,
what a gens is now is what a "family" would essentially be once we
revamped the system) - we might as well clarify the definition of gens,
family, and align everything more along historical models to get rid of
ambiguities.

> People usually have serious reasons for leaving a gens, and secondly,
> Nerva's compromise that's being worked on provides for a prevention of
> randomly changing your name each month.

It would still violate the principle. Let's revamp the gens/family
system first, then there will be no perceived justification for
implementing a law that will not only be repugnant to many
"traditionalists" but also be superfluous on the practical level.

> Additionally, I don't think anything is wrong with safeguarding the rights
> of the individual.

Rights according to whom? The macronation or ancient Rome?

Nova Roma is in the first place a religious and cultural
> recreation of Roma Antiqua, and far less so a political one, and certainly
> not a social one. Some people here seem to attempt to do the opposite.

This is a restoration of ancient Rome, period. It's just an accident of
modern life that there are more social elements of ancient Rome that we
need to push aside (such as slavery) than religious ones to be accepted
into today's community of nations. But that doesn't mean we should go
beyond the absolutely necessary changes.

Would
> people here really want this micronation to be an anachronism? I'm sorry
> folks, but if the Roman Empire had survived, it sure would have evolved.

Are we trying to create a hypothetical society based on what Rome *would
have* become? I don't see that stated anywhere in the mission statement.

> Good progression is progression that benefits everyone, and if a -
> potentially - powerful minority loses some of their imagined power in that
> process, that's too bad.

The idea is that the principles we're upholding benefit the vast
majority in the end.

It seems to me that the position you champion is not reconcilable with a
"restoration" effort of ancient Rome. We are not here to create a
utopian society, where every foundational principle is open to being
questioned so that we can perfect the system. We are all, presumably,
starting with the assumption that ancient Rome had it mostly right, and
that we need to resume that system today, with only those few
concessions necessary not to be destroyed through the fears, prejudices,
and proclivities of modern society. We are, essentially, a society
looking back in time in a hope that the future can be improved through
following what *was*. That does not seem to be what I hear echoing in
your vision of progress.

At the very least, we should get to the starting line by finishing a
restoration as honestly as possible, and *then* when, so to speak, the
race begins, decide if what we thought was the right thing for today's
world needs in its basic principles and nature to progress, evolve, and
change. We can't decide that until we finish what we've started here.

- M. Cornelius Gualterus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with the Constitution?
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT)

--- MVariusPM@aol.com wrote:
SNIP
." Honestly,
> that is one of the silliest (read: petty) things
> I've heard in ages.
>
Oh? This tops it.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20020726/hl_nm/fastfood_dc

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Edictum Praetoris
From:	"Chantal G. Whittington" <aerdensrw@yahoo.com>
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT)

Aeternia--Thank you for your kind wishes! I look
forward to doing what I can to help out, here. :)

---
Renata Corva

=====
Chantal
http://www.4dw.net/aerden/theran/theranweyr.html

"Yesterday, it worked.
Today, it is not working.
Windows is like that."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Predestined Changes (was Gens Hopping)
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Thu, 1 Aug 2002 19:00:43 EDT

In a message dated 8/1/02 1:06:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@pi.be writes:

> Would people here really want this micronation to be an anachronism? I'm
> sorry
> folks, but if the Roman Empire had survived, it sure would have evolved.
> Good progression is progression that benefits everyone, and if a -
> potentially - powerful minority loses some of their imagined power in that
> process, that's too bad

Actually we do not know that. If the Dynasts had not come along, we are not
sure what would have happened. We can postulate several things but we can't
be sure.
That was why NR was the ideal experiment. Until all the contamination crept
in.

I believe that all things move in cycles. Being a historian one sees
patterns repeating themselves over and over. This is just one such pattern
and it makes for a fascinating study.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Gens Hopping
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:08:08 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, L. Sicini.

Just a few words to clarify what seems to be a wrong assumption from
your part, Druse.

--- "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com> wrote:

<<snipped>>

> Americans don't sue because they are Americans, they
> sue because they can sue. If we start introducing
> Civil rights leges they are worthless without a means
> of enforcement. That means either Civil or Criminal
> penalities. Civil Penalities mean law suits. Criminal
> Penalities mean fines. If Civil Rights are a Civil
> offense (like the USA) it won't be long before
> European Nova Romans are as sue happy as American Nova
> Romans. If it's criminal it won't be long before the
> thin skinned are running to the Praetors "at the drop
> of a hat" regardless of the Macronation they are from.

You should consider that most Europeans nations (if not all of them;
there are exceptions for everything) have laws that play the same role
as American Civil Rights laws.
However, Solaris is right in stating that this kind of lawsuits are
less common in Europe. I am not sure why.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Hispania Provincial Meeting - Photos
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:18:41 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Calve.

--- quintuscassiuscalvus <richmal@attbi.com> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@y...> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites.
> >
> > I have the impression that some of you actually enjoy seeing
> > photographs of fellow Novoromans having fun :-).
> >
>
> Thank you for the pictures. Who needs a country, we have a hotel!
> <G>
>
> Pax,
>
> Quintus Cassius Calvus

You spotted that one, eh? :-).

It kept us all laughing for a good while :-).

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] My thanks to Tribune Salix Astur
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gnaeus=20Salix=20Astur?= <salixastur@yahoo.es>
Date:	Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:21:59 +0100 (BST)

Salvete Quirites; et salve, Cassi, pontifex maxime.

--- cassius622@aol.com wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> I would like to give my personal thanks to our Tribune Salix Astur
> for taking the time to re-craft the Gens law to account for some of
> the excellent amendment suggestions that were raised during public
> debate.
>
> This issue has been a difficult one. Because of the disagreement
> between our Consuls, (and a consular veto regarding the discussion of
> this law) it was not possible to craft the "Lex Octavia Salacia" Gens
> law with the usual amount of care and group effort.
>
> The law, while workable (and in my opinion necessary) could indeed be
> improved to cover the concerns of many Citizens. Halting the vote and
> bringing it back to the drawing board while the debate was in full
> swing was surely not an easy task - but it was a worthwhile one.
>
> I look forward to seeing the new draft of the lex. I am sure the
> improvements to the law will be worth the wait. :)
>
> Valete,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus

Thank you very much for your extremely kind words, Cassi.

I will try to do my best. I hope that you feel reasonably satisfied
with the results.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Tribunus Plebis
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Thules
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules
Lictor Curiatus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/